standard exists and where these relations are fixed. Thus in Russia the relation is 1 to 15, he believes.

M. JACOBI said the relation in Russia is 1 to 15.45; it was 1 to 15 when the half-imperial was worth exactly five rubles, but it was fixed at 15.45 after the half-imperial rose to five rubles and 15 kopecs. He asked if the gold coins are to be reckoned according to their intrinsic value.

The PRESIDENT said the fineness must be balanced against fineness, and adds that in Russia the relation between go'd and silver is 1 to 15.45; in Spain from 1 to 15.48; in France 1 to 15.50; and in the United States about 1 to 16. Gold is the principal currency in this country.

M. FORTAMPS remarked that if the Napoleon were rated 93 florins, as M. Mees mentions, it would produce an infinitesimal fraction. In the old Netherlands the florin was worth 2 11.64 francs; since its reduction in Holland it is worth 2.10 francs, and reckoning from the value of this florin, the Napoleon would be reduced to 19 francs 60 centimes, thus losing 40 centimes. Under such circumstances gold would never circulate in Holland. What M. Mees says about the par of Holland and German florins, despite their difference in value, is true commercially but not theoretically. Now, for international coins, we must consider their intrinsic value, and not the laws of exchange.

The PRESIDENT thought that the valuation of the Napoleon at 93 florins, making the relation 15.19, is small, and that the minimum ought to be between 15.25 and 15.30. The particular position of Holland ought to be considered on account of its East India colonies.

M. MEES said, in Mr. Leon's work, published in 1860, the relation is less than he proposed; it is 15.17. The kilogram of gold being worth at that time 3.460 francs, and the kilogram of silver 228 francs, we find the relation is 1 to 15.175.

M. FEER HERZOG thought that is a mistake. The lowest relation was in 1859; it was then 15.21. At London, in 1860, it was 15.27, and by present quotations in Paris it is 15.46. M. MEES answered, the relation in 1859 was an average for the whole year, and therefore M. Leon's figures are right.

M. FORTAMPS thought it well to arrive at a minimum relation. That proposed by M. Parieu, 15.25, is too low. It ought to be fixed at 15.45, so that a gold circulation could be established in the silver standard states. Moreover, the gold standard countries would never consent to fix the rate of silver coins, as they would thereby suffer a loss without compensation.

Baron DE HOCK thought that in discussing question seven we ought to fix upon something permanent. If the convention enters into the discussion of transitory measures he thought it would be best to leave them to be settled by special conventions hereafter; no inconvenience could result from that in monetary unification, for it is evident that the silver standard countries could not establish relations between the two metals so as to exclude gold from circulation without contradicting the vote given by the conference in favor of gold. Therefore he thought the establishment of these relations ought to be left to special conventions, and then each state could act as it thought best.

The PRESIDENT said the sub-committee proposed question seven in anticipation of the adoption of the double standard, leaving each state to continue it as long as it pleased. The conference went still further in its vote on question three, by deciding that the double standard should be transient, and ought to cease at a certain time fixed in advance. Consequently, a greater sanction is necessary to introduce gold into circulation in those states, and the opinion adopted by the conference ought to be consecrated in its consequences as in its principle. It should be declared that the relations between gold and silver ought not to be fixed below a certain minimum, to be determined by the conference. Special conventions could do it, but would not the situation of the countries concluding those treaties be better if they could rely upon a decision of the conference? To take Holland, for example, it would be easier to induce its plenipotentiaries to give up the proposed relation of 15.19 offered by M. Mees, if the conference had previously decided that the minimum relation should be 15.25 or 15.30.

M. FEER HERZOG thought the question put erroneously, and that there is antagonism between the establishment of a system of equations and the fixing of a relation. For instance, four thalers being worth 15 francs, if, with the fictitious gold thaler (3.75 cents,) the old silver thaler, which is somewhat less, is allowed to circulate, the relation will be between the weight of gold in the 15-franc piece and the weight of silver in the thaler.

M. ARTOM thought a relation between gold and silver may be established in two ways, namely, by equation and tarification; but he thought it easier to proceed by equation. M. LAVENAY asked if the question of relation between the two metals is not more properly an internal than an international question. It would be international if two universal moneys were to be created, one of gold and the other of silver. In that case a relation would have to be established. But gold has been selected as the international coin, and silver will be a temporary legal currency in the states with a legal standard and a double standard. In that case all international negotiations would be transacted in gold; and whether dollars, Napoleons, sovereigns, or four-thaler pieces are received, payments will always be made in the terms and provisions of the convention. Therefore it does not seem necessary to stipulate a relation between gold and silver; for if one state establishes a bad tarification,

gold will not come there, and it will keep the more inconvenient circulation of silver much longer, and the individual interest of the state would incline it to receive gold, but there would be no international interest.

The PRESIDENT replied that an international money ought to have the qualities required for a serious circulation; it must circulate in the country; the advantage of internationality does not guarantee it.

M. PARIEU, referring to M. Feer Herzog's observation on equations of gold and silver coins, said it is not necessary to have a fixed relation, for, in the example quoted, four thalers equalling 15 francs, the equation embraces the idea of the existence of a relation of 15.30. It would be the same in the states of south Germany if seven florins were equal to four thalers or 15 francs. But it would not be so with Holland, where the florin is not so easily equalized, and for which a relation would have to be established.

M. FEER HERZOG did not mean what M. Parieu thinks. He meant that in giving a legal circulation to the 15-franc piece at four thalers, the two-thaler gold and silver pieces, the one of 3.754, the other 3.71, must have the same value in the interior, and then the equation would be established between the gold and silver coins, although the treaty only established the equation between gold coins.

The PRESIDENT. If an agreement were made with Prussia that 15 francs should be worth four thalers, it would be introducing the international standar), and its silver thaler would not be altered, as it would be rated at 15.30. The circulation of gold would no longer be prohibited, and no doubt would become of great importance. So in Bavaria, if the 15-franc gold piece circulated there for seven florins, it would be the same as fixing a relation.

M. LAVENAY thought it is not of international interest to fix a minimum of relation between the two metals. What would be the use of it? It would only be introducing gold in circulation in the silver standard states. But if a legal circulation is given to gold in those states, that metal will assume the ascendency, and silver will have to circulate at its market value.

On such conditions, those states would soon discover that the best way to bring gold into circulation would be to treat it more favorably. As gold is more portable and convenient for money, it is the interest of nations to encourage its circulation both at home and abroad. The PRESIDENT doubted if it is the interest of every state to encourage the circulation of gold within its limits. Holland, for instance, though its standard is different from that of its two neighbors, and its currency is different from all its neighbors, yet has a flourishing commerce, and its prosperity may continue a long time yet.

M. JACOBI thought with M. Lavenay that the best way to get a money for general circulation is to leave each state to settle the relation between the two metals. There would certainly be great differences at first, but particular tariffs would soon give way to a general tariff.

The PRESIDENT said it is not necessary to have a complete tariff now, but only to fix a minimum for the relation.

Mr. STAS observed that different meanings are given to the word equation in this debate, and he thought that in voting affirmatively on question three, in which the conference has decided to fix the relation at 1 to 15, that relation ought to serve as a basis for equations. The PRESIDENT said the affirmative vote on question three did not carry with it the idea of equation between gold and silver coins, but only between the different gold coins, and then the vote was only on partial coincidences, and not on equations. It has, moreover, been decided that the double standard was necessary for silver standard countries as a medium of transition to reach the gold standard. Now as the relation between the two metals is different in different countries, and as gold comes in more readily when the coefficient of silver is higher, ought not a minimum to be fixed if gold is wished to be introduced? It would be vain to decide upon an international money, without fixing a relation for it with the silver money in states where the double standard was transitory. There must be some system in circulation of coin to make it permanent. The Holland ducat, so useful in travelling, only disappeared because it had no fixed relation with silver in any country, and so its existence was ephemeral. This must not be the case with the new international money. Mr. HAINDL thought the greatest difficulty for states having the double standard, or that are to have it temporarily, would be to find the exact proportion between gold and silver during the period of transition. Steps would have to be taken for one metal to drive out the other, but care should be taken not to cause a crisis by driving out silver too suddenly. These steps can be taken only at the moment of operation, so that no limited minimum could now be fixed. If the relation is 15. 19 in Holland, as M. Mees says it is, it is 15.58 in Germany at present. So each state must be left to fix that relation, which would offer no danger, as its object would be to draw gold into circulation and join the monetary union proposed by the conference as soon as silver disappeared from circulation.

M. BROCH agreed with M. Parieu that a limited minimum is necessary for the transition period. Without such a provision, gold could not be introduced into a country that had fixed a limit too low. Thus there may be a doubt about the equation of 15 francs to four thalers, permitting gold to enter Prussia, as four thalers would have an intrinsic value below three pieces of five francs each.

The PRESIDENT observed that within the limits of states, sentiments wholly apart from

economy often have an influence on opinions in money matters. A reform of this kind encounters certain ideas of routine against it, certain exaggerated fears of any innovation, a singular love for certain coins. Therefore the conference should endeavor to establish rules to realize, as far as possible, the desires it has expressed in favor of the gold standard.

M. MEINECKE said that as question seven is in respect to transient measures, which he cannot discuss, he and his colleague must refrain from voting.

M. VROLIK, though he agreed with M. Parieu, thought with M. Lavenay that it is better in practice to leave each state to fix its own relations. An average in exchange would soon be established between the two metals by the force of circumstances alone.

In Holland, the Napoleon would be received at 9 florins 35, which, as M. Fortamps observes, would give a relation of 15.19. Germany, as well as Holland, could receive the 15-franc pieces at 4 thalers, or 7 Bavarian florins. The 15-franc piece would then have a great circulation; it would be the connecting point between the German and French monetary systems. On the contrary, if a limited minimum relation of 15.25 or 15.30 were admitted, as M. Parieu proposes, it would be creating difficulties to a monetary unity; it is therefore better to fix nothing.

Baron DE HOCK, with Messrs. Lavenay, Meinecke, Haindl, Mees, and Vrolik, thought article seven might be passed over. Though he agreed with M. Parieu in having some principle for transitory measures, he thought it difficult to fix a limited minimum relation between the two metals for the states with the silver standard. In his opinion, that would depend entirely upon their value at the time of the international conventions. In fact, if it is remarked that gold has continued to decrease in value for the last dozen years; that during the next two years it rose; we may ask if it will continue to rise, or will fall again? This would cause serious discussion. Some men think gold will continue to rise, because its extraction is daily becoming more expensive, and because of its great dispersion by its introduction into the monetary system of India. Among others, Mr. Soetbeer, of Hamburg, whose writings have given him a name in Germany, thinks gold has an abnormal circulation now, and that it must fall in future.

In presence of such different opinions it is difficult to fix a limited minimum of relation that would satisfy the aims of the conference. Perhaps it is better to adhere to a certain generality, and for that reason M. Hock proposed this substitute for article seven:

"The advantage of internationality which coins would acquire from the metal adopted as a common standard would not be a sufficient guarantee for keeping them in circulation in each state, but it would be necessary to stipulate also, in countries that have had the silver standard up to this time, as well as in those of the double standard, that the relation between the value of gold and silver should not be established at a rate too low to permit the serious introduction of gold."

The PRESIDENT said he would willingly adopt M. Hock's proposal for countries of a silver standard, but he doubted if it would suit countries with the double standard. The last have long had a legal relation between gold and silver, and it would be difficult to suppose they would modify their metallic relations on adopting the gold standard, so as to drive gold out of circulation.

What M. de Hock's amendment contains, referring to countries of a double standard, might then be rescinded without inconvenience. The present debate is not on a minimum relation, but upon M. de Hock's general proposal, that can be voted for affirmatively by the members of the conference who have not contrary instructions from their governments, without settling the question of a minimum.

M. HERBERT remarked that the question will come up in the special conventions, and can then be decided by the delegates that are qualified to do so.

On invitation of the president, M. FORTAMPS said, in his private opinion, a minimum relation less than 15.40 ought not to be adopted.

The PRESIDENT is disposed to put Baron Hock's proposition to vote.

Mr. RUGGLES asks that the vote be postponed till the next sitting, because he does not clearly see the effect of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT proposed to put the question to vote, and remarked that those members not prepared for the proposition, as Mr. Ruggles, who seems, however, to be alone, can withhold their vote at present and give their adhesion or refusal some other time.

It is

M. KERN thought the debate has been long enough to give every member of the conference sufficient time to form an opinion, and says he is not disposed to go further than Baron de Hock. When such important and diverse interests are at stake, long reflection is necessary before a positive decision can be rendered. Baron de Hock's proposition is less binding in its general terms than if it was made out in figures, as M. Parieu's primitive idea was. a happy compromise of diverging opinions tending to the same end, and differing only in comprehensiveness. The vote, then, should not be deferred, as no better solution could be reached in all probability. For the good of the conference the vote ought to take place immediately.

Mr. RUGGLES excused himself from voting because he does not understand the question. The United States would not consent to accept any fixed relation between gold and silver. The double standard is abolished when this relation no longer exists.

The PRESIDENT reminded Mr. Ruggles that the double standard still exists in the United States, and of course the relation between silver and gold, which is 1 to 16.

Mr. RUGGLES answered that though the double standard still exists legislatively in the United States, it is virtually abolished in practice, and hence the United States has the gold standard alone.

The PRESIDENT. Reasoning in that way, as France coins a less number of five-franc pieces than America does dollars, we might say, like Mr. Ruggles, that France has the gold standard alone, and that is what nobody would assert.

M. JACOBI remarked that the United States cannot be considered as having the single gold standard any more than France, unless a new law is passed to prohibit the coinage of silver dollars.

M. FORTAMPS regretted that the vote is not to fix a limited minimum of tariff, and says no country with the gold standard can be forced to admit a tariff of silver coins of other countries where the silver standard is preserved.

M. de Hock's proposal was put to vote and adopted unanimously, except by Prussia, the member from that country declaring that he cannot vote, and the member from the United States deferring his vote.

M. de Hock's proposition having been adopted, question seven was expunged, and would not be voted on.

The discussion of article eight was deferred till the next meeting, fixed for Saturday, at 10 o'clock.

The sitting adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock, noon.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE-FIFTH SITTING.

WEDNESDAY, June 26, 1867.

Prince NAPOLEON (JEROME) presiding. Present the delegates that attended the last meeting, and M. Delyannis, with the exception of M. Mees, who went to Amsterdam on urgent business, and could no longer take part in the labors of the conference, to his great regret. In consequence of a report presented to the Emperor by the minister of foreign affairs, published in the Moniteur of the 26th June, his Majesty intrusted the presidency of the commission to his Highness Prince NAPOLEON, who opened the sitting with these words: "Gentlemen: Appointed by the Emperor to preside over the International Conference for the unification of moneys, I have gladly accepted the mission. It is not becoming for me to say why I have received this appointment; the reason is kindly given in the report of the minister of foreign affairs. But I assure you it would be a vain presumption in me to think that I could bring much knowledge or furnish much information upon the subject in question, to an assembly of men so eminent as yourselves.

"I feel my incompetency, particularly after the wise direction that my friend and colleague M. de Parieu has given to your labors; and I hope he will aid me with his counsel and advice. I am aware of the difficulty I shall have in interpreting our good intentions by practical results; and the reading of the minutes of your sittings has proved to me how much you are moved by the spirit of conciliation so necessary to arrive at a monetary unity, which is the desire of all, and the great and many difficulties of all kinds that we shall have to encounter in our labors. But the greater the difficulties, so much greater the glory for the governments here represented. You all know the intelligence of public opinion in the present age, how prompt and exacting it is in its ardor; and we must endeavor to gratify it without disguising the obstacles we shall have to surmount.

"I beg you, therefore, gentlemen, to keep constantly before your eyes the object we are pursuing. Let us remember that the public expects a result from our conference, and let us show why many former committees and conferences were unsuccessful. Let us so act that our assembly may not result in a fine report alone, or a good argument in favor of the unity of moneys; but let it end in a useful result.

"Let us continue our labors so well begun. I think this is the proper order for our deliberations: We will continue the discussion of the numbered questions; when that is done I will state what I think the best way, in a general or particular manner, for each state to 'hasten the period of germination for the seeds you have sown,' as M. de Parieu has justly and eloquently expressed it.

"I bring you all that I can, which is an energetic good-will and a strong desire to effect a monetary unity. Allow me, gentlemen, to rely on your kind assistance."

M. DE PARIEU replied to this speech of his imperial highness, for himself and the conference, in the following terms:

"Monseigneur: It is a great gratification to me to be the interpreter of the conference, by expressing the sentiments we all feel at the honor conferred upon this assembly by the presidency of your imperial highness. Permit us to hope that this honor will carry strength with it. Your financial knowledge, and the experience derived from your extensive travels, will serve to guide you in the direction of our arduous deliberations.

"Your imperial highness approves of the progress we have already made, and that approbation is of value to us all, and to me especially.

"Allow me to congratulate you, monseigneur, on the sympathy which you have just expressed for progressive ideas. The pursuit of useful innovations, over obstacles and through necessary delays, is a school of patience and justice; and it is also a career of honor worth entering, and in which we will march together at your side."

After this response of M. Parieu, in which all the members of the conference concurred, Count D'AVILA submitted two propositions to his colleagues:

1st. The conference will express its profound gratitude to the Emperor for the honor he has conferred by appointing his imperial highness Prince Napoleon to preside over it. The address will be presented to the Emperor by a deputation from the conference, or, if there is no objection, by the entire conference.

2d. The conference will give a vote of thanks to M. Parieu, its vice-president, for the able and impartial manner in which he presided over their former sittings.

These propositions received the approval of the entire conference, and the first, relating to his imperial highness, was sent to the vice-president for transmission.

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS then handed a letter from his excellency Djemil Pacha to the conference, excusing himself for not attending, on account of the Sultan's arrival. The minutes of the third and fourth sittings were read and adopted.

M. DELYANNIS regretted that he could not attend the last meeting. He said that he can vote on principal questions, but not on subordinate ones, as his government has adopted the system of the convention of 1865. Not being authorized to vote up to this time, he thinks it his duty to make reservations upon some points settled by the conference. His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS opened the discussion for question eight:

"Is it necessary, for the success of monetary unity, to constitute a unity at present, identical everywhere in metallic composition, weight, and denomination; ́and, in this case, what bases are to be assigned to it?

"Or is it sufficient to constitute common types, having a common denominator of medium amount, as multiples of five francs for the gold coins?"

Mr. RIVERS WILSON read the following declaration:

"Before recommencing the discussion of the list of questions, the English delegates deem it their duty to the government they represent, to the members of the conference, and particularly to the government of the Emperor, by whose invitation they are present, and to prevent any misunderstanding, to indicate their delicate and exceptional situation. They are convinced of the necessity of this declaration from the serious and practical turn the discussion has borne to this time, and particularly from the high signification that must attach in public opinion to the presidency of his imperial highness Prince Napoleon, and to the labors that must result from it.

"The English government was obliged to accept the cordial invitation from the government of the Emperor to participate in this conference, because a refusal would have shown a want of courtesy, and would have made it liable to accusations of prejudices upon this very important question..

Indeed, the English nation is in a position much more independent upon this question than most continental nations.

"So long as public opinion has not decided in favor of a change of the present system, which offers no serious inconveniences, either in wholesale or retail trade, and until it shall be incontestably demonstrated that a new system offers advantages sufficiently commanding to justify the abandonment of that which is approved by experience and rooted in the habits of the people, the English government could not believe it to be its duty to take the initiative in assimilating its coinage with those of the countries of the continent.

"But the English government will be always ready to aid any attempt to enlighten and guide public opinion in the appreciation of the question, and facilitate the discussion of the means by which such an assimilation, so advantageous in theory, may be effected.

"Thus, while consenting to be represented in this conference, the English government has found it necessary to place the most careful restrictions upon its delegates; their part is simply to listen to the different arguments, to study the situation as developed in discussion, and to report to their government. Thus far they have found no difficulty in voting in favor of all the propositions adopted by the conference, because their principles agreed with the system now in force in England. But they cannot vote for any question tending to bind their government, or express any opinion to induce the belief that Great Britain would adopt the convention of 1865."

M. HERBET informs the conference that the reserves just mentioned by Mr. Rivers Wilson are found in Lord Stanley's despatch to the French ambassador in London, announcing participation of England in the monetary conference.

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS expressed the opinion that the labors of the conference are essentially theoretical; that practical results must be effected in future international conventions, and therefore the English delegates need not fear to express their opinion on any question, since it cannot bind their government, any more than the opinions of other

members.

M. MEINECKE thought it not to be necessary for the success of monetary unification to